Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4711)	8/30/2003 8:23:36 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

Hi Chris, Of course, you are correct. I was merely trying to keep things as simple as possible so everyone could have a basic understanding of the applicable laws. As an attorney, you'd know far better than the average person what the rest of the story entails. I'm not taking sides here, either with Bux or Matt, other than that, as Matt contended, SI is not the proper venue to resolve any dispute from I-Hub. I'm also not familiar with the IDCC thread on I-Hub, nor the poster that was alleged/presumably "attacked" by Bux's "offending" post. While I think Bux could have made his point(s) without specifically identifying the other poster (even though everyone else would have known who he was referring to in the post), that's so much water under the bridge now. Bux should now know that he must take the high road if he wants to continue to post. The road he takes must be higher than the other thread participants, which means he must turn the other cheek at times, and censor his own posts, using better judgement. It may not seem fair, but thems the apples in his basket right now. KJC

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4711)	8/30/2003 8:49:56 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

CH, a member having paid for the right to post has the right to continue to post unless they have demonstrably violated a reasonably necessary condition of posting. Whether that would apply in the present case I have no position on and take none. But you do seem to be taking a position. You seem to be challenging Matt's ability to prevent Bux from posting. Is this your position or not? Have fun, Phil

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4711)	8/31/2003 9:36:38 AM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5315

Keep in mind that iHub is not "pay to post". Payment there enables premium features, which should remain intact whether suspended or not (if not, I need to revisit the source code and fix that) and the only posting-related things that subscription enables is an increase in daily posting ability to effectively unlimited quantity and location, with suspension clamping down only on location. Personally, I don't know why Bux is suspended over there and don't much care beyond academic curiosity. I suspect if he asks over there, he'll be told. Matt won't "answer to" his admin decisions here just as I won't answer to my admin decisions on this site over at iHub. As for SI's subscription being construed as a contract to allow posting, that's debatable, and apparently the previous legal department didn't want to see it debated in court. I feel no such reservations. But the model will change to be more like iHub's, with certain differences. The quality is higher here and I don't want to dilute it the way it can happen when you fling the doors open.